quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
So some on the inside info to a competitor of Boeing, today's landing makes this a highly successful event.

Something went wrong, we didn't lose the craft, and there craft was recovered perfectly well within parameters for humans to survive the whole event.

I read that rendezvousing with the ISS was not a primary mission success criteria. The craft had to successfully survive launch, reentry, and landing. Rendezvousing with the ISS was intended to be the cherry on top of the mission.

I completely agree that the optics of this are pretty horrible. Boeing needed positive media in the worst way and they didn't get it. Lost in all of this are the successes that were achieved during the mission.

Elon needs to learn to keep his thoughts to himself. It wasn't that long ago that his company's capsule blew up during testing. And more recently, the supposedly bullet proof windows on his new electric truck were smashed with a ball bearing. A little humility can go a long ways.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
So some on the inside info to a competitor of Boeing, today's landing makes this a highly successful event.

Something went wrong, we didn't lose the craft, and there craft was recovered perfectly well within parameters for humans to survive the whole event.

They just proved that the primary mission (survival of a manned crew) can succeed even if the secondary mission (delivering supplies) fails due to an input error.

Not unlike the first Tomcat

(And I did a grammatical edit of my post)

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by El Cid 92:
Anyone else get the impression this was other than a "failed mission".

It was complete with extra-believable info "there was gifts, clothes, and food on board for the ISS crew for the holidays".

Maybe my tin-foil hat is a bit snug, but I'm not so sure about this one. I'm betting it was a success and managed to launch something that isn't supposed to be widely known about.

Andrew

Help me with the math, as I am having difficulty with the part where a publicly traded company, with several high profile failures in recent history, have put the big hurt on stock value, and how this will increase public (investor) desire to risk anything financial.

This monkey shaves with Occam's razor...

What's in the box??

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
They just proved that the primary mission (survival of a manned crew) can succeed even if the secondary mission (delivering supplies) fails due to an input error.

Not unlike the first Tomcat

(And I did a grammatical edit of my post)

Ah, I gotcha now.

At the first press conference after the "issue", you could see 2 of the Astronauts slated to fly Starliner next quietly lobbying without lobbying to fly on the next flight, ie "If we were onboard, we might have been able to correct the issue", "It may be safe to have us fly the next flight", etc. Which is likely true - if it's safe to fly, it's safe to fly - hopefully next time they make it to the ISS.

The Starliner seems to take A LONG time to get to orbit - the ULA rockets only take it to a suborbital height and it actually requires the spacecraft to do the final thrust to orbit. Seems quite a bit different than Crew Dragon / Falcon, after 15 min Starliner is only at 98 Miles where as Falcon / Crew Dragon pass that in only 3 minutes. ULA / Boeing says it's for 'crew comfort return', but I have to wonder if it has to do with the aerodynamics of the fat capsule on top of a thin rocket?

Regardless, I hope both Starliner & Crew Dragon are flying people to orbit / ISS very very soon. It's been far too long that we've been hitching rides to space.

^^^ your close. Let’s just say the Atlas V is way underperforming for the task at hand.

I’m with ya on hitching rides. We need our own rides to space. The most advanced nation in the world needs to get it done.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:...
What's in the box??

The bunny.

Put. It. Back...

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
^^^ your close. Let’s just say the Atlas V is way underperforming for the task at hand.

Oh for sure, looking at other Atlas V launches and they are screaming up there just like a Falcon 9 - to me it has to be a Starliner limitation - I'm no rocket scientist but the fat capsule always made me scratch my head and that 'delay' to figure out the extended skirt was no surprise to me. And of course there are different performance limits for human vs equipment launches.

It's interesting seeing different designs to tackle the same problem (Dragon v Starliner), assuming they both have the same set of requirements - but I know SpaceX always intended to use the Crew Dragon contract to make a spacecraft that could outperform the specs (extended free flight as opposed to the limited Starliner freeflight time of which I recall is 60 hours not attached to ISS, or something like that - I can't find the link, among other things).

Regardless of the issue, hopefully the tech who is supposed to sync the clocks before closing the hatch does it right next time!

who didn't see this coming

'Aerospace giant Boeing announced Monday that chief executive Dennis A. Muilenburg is resigning and being replaced by board chairman David L. Calhoun.'

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
^^^ your close. Let’s just say the Atlas V is way underperforming for the task at hand.

Oh for sure, looking at other Atlas V launches and they are screaming up there just like a Falcon 9 - to me it has to be a Starliner limitation - I'm no rocket scientist but the fat capsule always made me scratch my head and that 'delay' to figure out the extended skirt was no surprise to me. And of course there are different performance limits for human vs equipment launches.

It's interesting seeing different designs to tackle the same problem (Dragon v Starliner), assuming they both have the same set of requirements - but I know SpaceX always intended to use the Crew Dragon contract to make a spacecraft that could outperform the specs (extended free flight as opposed to the limited Starliner freeflight time of which I recall is 60 hours not attached to ISS, or something like that - I can't find the link, among other things).

Regardless of the issue, hopefully the tech who is supposed to sync the clocks before closing the hatch does it right next time!

Come on guys, the Atlas V wasn't underperforming and Starliner isn't under designed. The mission trajectory was likely specified by NASA and flown for the exact reason that this thread is three pages long: there were issues with the guidance software.

The ISS is worth how many billion dollars? NASA and the other collaborating space agencies are super skittish when it comes to new/unproven automated hardware coming within close proximity of the station. There's just too much at risk of something going wrong.

Six years ago, our first Cygnus launch was scripted much in the same way as Starliner. We came in low and over the course of several days demonstrated to NASA that the guidance system could make small, coordinated corrections to slowly increase its orbit height until it was finally within range of grappling arm. On subsequent missions, the time between launch and rendezvous with the ISS has decreased significantly because the hardware and software are proven.

I can guarantee that the first SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule had to perform a similarly scripted slow approach.

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by D4Heavy:
^^^ your close. Let’s just say the Atlas V is way underperforming for the task at hand.

Oh for sure, looking at other Atlas V launches and they are screaming up there just like a Falcon 9 - to me it has to be a Starliner limitation - I'm no rocket scientist but the fat capsule always made me scratch my head and that 'delay' to figure out the extended skirt was no surprise to me. And of course there are different performance limits for human vs equipment launches.

It's interesting seeing different designs to tackle the same problem (Dragon v Starliner), assuming they both have the same set of requirements - but I know SpaceX always intended to use the Crew Dragon contract to make a spacecraft that could outperform the specs (extended free flight as opposed to the limited Starliner freeflight time of which I recall is 60 hours not attached to ISS, or something like that - I can't find the link, among other things).

Regardless of the issue, hopefully the tech who is supposed to sync the clocks before closing the hatch does it right next time!

Come on guys, the Atlas V wasn't underperforming and Starliner isn't under designed. The mission trajectory was likely specified by NASA and flown for the exact reason that this thread is three pages long: there were issues with the guidance software.

The ISS is worth how many billion dollars? NASA and the other collaborating space agencies are super skittish when it comes to new/unproven automated hardware coming within close proximity of the station. There's just too much at risk of something going wrong.

Six years ago, our first Cygnus launch was scripted much in the same way as Starliner. We came in low and over the course of several days demonstrated to NASA that the guidance system could make small, coordinated corrections to slowly increase its orbit height until it was finally within range of grappling arm. On subsequent missions, the time between launch and rendezvous with the ISS has decreased significantly because the hardware and software are proven.

I can guarantee that the first SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule had to perform a similarly scripted slow approach.

Husky, I work at ULA. My response was to Rhino on why the Atlas seemed so slow. It’s all part of the plan. That’s all I was saying.

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
Come on guys, the Atlas V wasn't underperforming and Starliner isn't under designed. The mission trajectory was likely specified by NASA and flown for the exact reason that this thread is three pages long: there were issues with the guidance software.

Prove it. Right now NASA says it's because of a faulty clock - however that had zero impact on what ULAs Atlas V did to get it up to 'suborbital' height.

I compared the Crew Dragon OFT to the Starliner OFT flight profices. Crew Dragon is higher at 3 min than Starliner is at 15 min. I know that approaches to the actual ISS are slow and scripted, but that really has zero to do with how fast they get into orbit, since the rendezvous takes hours for all of them to get near to ISS>

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
Six years ago, our first Cygnus launch was scripted much in the same way as Starliner. We came in low and over the course of several days demonstrated to NASA that the guidance system could make small, coordinated corrections to slowly increase its orbit height until it was finally within range of grappling arm. On subsequent missions, the time between launch and rendezvous with the ISS has decreased significantly because the hardware and software are proven.

Which Cygnus launch? I'd like to compare myself. I highly doubt it took 30 min for it to get to orbit, especially since it was only hauling equipment, not people. Sure the rendz could take days, but that has zero to do with getting to orbit.

Here is the first Cygnus / Antares launch. 5 mins already through 100 miles.



Here is an example of an Atlas V launch of Cygnus (when ATKs Russian rockets were blowing up and ULA had to give them a ride). Less than 6 min into flight at its at 170 miles in altitude. Yes, video time is 16 min but the launch wasn't until 9:30.

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
I can guarantee that the first SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule had to perform a similarly scripted slow approach.

I was comparing apples to apple, the crew OFT launches. They are replicating the human rated flight profiles for the follow on crew launches.

But if you can guarantee this, please find the data / video to prove your unfounded (and in my opinion, in-accurate) claims.

Here is the first Cargo Dragon launch - it is before SpaceX provided all the data, however at T+00+11+00, the first and second stages are complete, the fairing has been jettisoned, and the solar panels are deployed. I would suggest that is all proof that it is in orbit at 11 min.



I'm not saying Starliner is defective, I'm just saying it was designed very differently than Crew Dragon. I wish it all the success, but it's slow as fuck getting into orbit and I know an Atlas V with 2 SRBs can get that weight to orbit A LOT faster. So can Falcon 9 & Crew Dragon. And they have all done it from jump.

Something is making Boeing have ULA launch it like this, more than likely weight / stress / aerodynamic limits on the Starliner. Because plenty of other capsules rocketed to orbit with people onboard without taking 30 min to get there.